5 ms·

> Why this is, is an interesting question but it hits on too many taboo topics. Though perhaps rational discussion becoming taboo is itself a part of the reason

> Why this is, is an interesting question but it hits on too many taboo topics. Though perhaps rational discussion becoming taboo is itself a part of the reason. I'm sure you fail to see the contradiction in claiming that "rational discussion" is a taboo while clearly not stating your hypothesis. In the same vein, your hypothesis obviates the fact that "rational discussion" in topics of interpreting social studies requires building out on a ton of assumptions that are weakly held and the reason why the social scientists abstain from giving clear-cut answers is because the topic has too much depth and nuance to make strong statements with confidence.

somenameforme 24d ago
Western social sciences are completely dysfunctional. Various fields within it, like social psychology, have a replication rate in the 20% range. [1] And mind you that that's for leading and formerly reputable journals like the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. That leads to the rather odd scenario that if you take anything that social science says is significant, and assume it is not, then you'd be you'd be vastly more likely to be correct than not. The whole field is rife with ideology, poor logic, and bias confirming experiments. One of the very few highly replicable, predictive, and valuable aspects of the social sciences is IQ, which the modern more pseudo-science oriented work actively seeks to undermine. It's a remarkable display of academic and intellectual decline, while people simply look on impassively. At this point all we need is some fires and a fiddle. So for instance with all Western work on the reversal of Flynn Effect they will go out of their way to insist that it doesn't mean people are becoming less intelligent, even though every single measurement we have that correlates to such (such as test scores) suggests that is exactly what is happening. And they will go one step further and work to actively undermine issues that are obviously in play like dysgenic fertility. Two well accepted facts are that (1) intelligence is highly heritable and (2) intelligence is inversely correlated with fertility. Put the two together and what do you get? Dysgenics, on a scale that can play out very rapidly. But no.. people aren't becoming less intelligent, they're merely becoming less capable at everything intelligence is associated with. And dysgenic fertility? Nah impossible. FFS. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psycholo...
- dns_snek 22d ago
  > like social psychology, have a replication rate in the 20% range. [1] Elaborate. Your "in the 20% range" claim seems to be incorrect, according to your own source, and missing context: research in other fields like medicine faces similar issues. In psychology: > In August 2015, the first open empirical study of reproducibility in psychology was published [...] Of 97 original studies with significant effects, 36% replicated successfully (p value below 0.05) In medicine, for comparison: > Of 49 medical studies from 1990 to 2003 with more than 1000 citations, 92% found that the studied therapies were effective. Of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged. A 2011 analysis by researchers with pharmaceutical company Bayer found that, at most, a quarter of Bayer's in-house findings replicated the original results. But the analysis of Bayer's results found that the results that did replicate could often be successfully used for clinical applications.
  - somenameforme 21d ago
    Ah it looks like somebody has been ideologically editing Wikipedia. Shocker. Here [1] is an archive from a year or so ago, referencing/citing the 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. I should probably look to finding a more stable and reliable source for information/citations than Wiki. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Replication_crisis&oldid=1308562980#In_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Replication_crisi...
    - dns_snek 19d ago
      Actually that's my bad. The current article still says fundamentally the same thing it's just formatted slightly differently: > Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher replication rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%). I somehow overlooked that part of your comment. The 23% figure is still present but it refers to a specific journal so I didn't take it into account.

somenameforme 24d ago

Western social sciences are completely dysfunctional. Various fields within it, like social psychology, have a replication rate in the 20% range. [1] And mind you that that's for leading and formerly reputable journals like the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. That leads to the rather odd scenario that if you take anything that social science says is significant, and assume it is not, then you'd be you'd be vastly more likely to be correct than not. The whole field is rife with ideology, poor logic, and bias confirming experiments. One of the very few highly replicable, predictive, and valuable aspects of the social sciences is IQ, which the modern more pseudo-science oriented work actively seeks to undermine. It's a remarkable display of academic and intellectual decline, while people simply look on impassively. At this point all we need is some fires and a fiddle. So for instance with all Western work on the reversal of Flynn Effect they will go out of their way to insist that it doesn't mean people are becoming less intelligent, even though every single measurement we have that correlates to such (such as test scores) suggests that is exactly what is happening. And they will go one step further and work to actively undermine issues that are obviously in play like dysgenic fertility. Two well accepted facts are that (1) intelligence is highly heritable and (2) intelligence is inversely correlated with fertility. Put the two together and what do you get? Dysgenics, on a scale that can play out very rapidly. But no.. people aren't becoming less intelligent, they're merely becoming less capable at everything intelligence is associated with. And dysgenic fertility? Nah impossible. FFS. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psycholo...

dns_snek 22d ago
> like social psychology, have a replication rate in the 20% range. [1] Elaborate. Your "in the 20% range" claim seems to be incorrect, according to your own source, and missing context: research in other fields like medicine faces similar issues. In psychology: > In August 2015, the first open empirical study of reproducibility in psychology was published [...] Of 97 original studies with significant effects, 36% replicated successfully (p value below 0.05) In medicine, for comparison: > Of 49 medical studies from 1990 to 2003 with more than 1000 citations, 92% found that the studied therapies were effective. Of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged. A 2011 analysis by researchers with pharmaceutical company Bayer found that, at most, a quarter of Bayer's in-house findings replicated the original results. But the analysis of Bayer's results found that the results that did replicate could often be successfully used for clinical applications.
- somenameforme 21d ago
  Ah it looks like somebody has been ideologically editing Wikipedia. Shocker. Here [1] is an archive from a year or so ago, referencing/citing the 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. I should probably look to finding a more stable and reliable source for information/citations than Wiki. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Replication_crisis&oldid=1308562980#In_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Replication_crisi...
  - dns_snek 19d ago
    Actually that's my bad. The current article still says fundamentally the same thing it's just formatted slightly differently: > Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher replication rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%). I somehow overlooked that part of your comment. The 23% figure is still present but it refers to a specific journal so I didn't take it into account.